State allows action if person is behind in child support payments.

State allows action if person is behind in child support payments.

Indiana has laws that allow officials to take away the professional license of a person who is behind in child support payments. Prosecutor Michael A. Dvorak acknowledged that he has been researching the law to see if it is a viable option to use against David R. Snyder, controversial member of the Roseland Town Council. Snyder holds an independent real estate broker's license. He earns a living by selling houses in St. Joseph County and the surrounding area. He said he is aware of the possibility that he could lose his license. "Yes, my livelihood is at risk," he said Friday. Snyder is an estimated $80,000 in arrears in child support payments owed to his two teenage sons, who live in Texas with Snyder's ex-wife. And even though he is making some payments toward his child support, he might still be in contempt of a November court order that specified how and when he is to make the payments. When Snyder was divorced in Texas in May 2000, a judge ordered him to pay $1,300 a month for the support of his two sons, one of whom is disabled. He fell behind immediately. In June 2004, he was arrested for failure to appear at a hearing about his delinquent support payments. The $2,000 bond he posted eventually went toward his support debt. In October 2004, Circuit Court Magistrate David Ready ordered Snyder to pay his entire salary from Roseland, $183 a month, toward his child support. In addition, he was to supply the prosecutor's office with a monthly accounting of his real estate commissions, and to pay 30 percent of the gross amount within three days of receiving the commission. The prosecutor hauled him back into court in October 2005 for failing to comply with the order. A deputy prosecutor provided evidence that he was not paying the commissions within three days and not reporting all of the properties he had sold. At the hearing, Snyder admitted that he had not reported a couple of commissions because he had "gifted" them to his wife, Dorothy, who also serves on the Roseland Town Council. Snyder also revealed at the hearing that he was not paying 30 percent of his gross earnings, but was deducting business expenses and paying 30 percent of the net. On Nov. 9, Ready issued his ruling, in which he found Snyder again to be in contempt of court and ordered him to go to jail unless he could come up with $11,250 toward his debt. He managed to come up with the money and paid it on Nov. 18. But his court file indicates that he still is not following the judge's order. He is not filing his monthly reports on time and is not making payments within three days of receiving a commission check. Perhaps worse, he is not paying 30 percent of his gross earnings. For example, he filed a report on Jan. 9 that said he earned $1,920 from the sale of one house in December. Thirty percent of that equals $576. Added to his $183 Roseland salary, his total payment for December was $759. But Snyder's $576 check accompanied the Jan. 9 letter and was not paid within the required three days in December. More egregious was a letter Snyder filed with the court on Jan. 18 saying that he had overlooked the reporting of his November earnings because of "the pandemonium that is my life." An accompanying financial report says he sold four houses in November with total commissions of $6,170. Thirty percent of that would be $1,851. But Snyder's letter says the balance he owed for November was only $1,300, which he paid on Jan. 18, several weeks late. Asked about the discrepancy in numbers, Snyder said he understood the court order to be 30 percent of his gross earnings, up to a maximum of $1,300. The court order, however, is very specific about that issue. "To the extent that any month's payment might exceed the $1,300 per month obligation," the order says, "the excess shall be applied to the ever increasing arrearage." That apparently is what is troubling to Prosecutor Dvorak. Snyder doesn't seem to be following the court order. Dvorak was reluctant to talk on the record about the specifics of Snyder's case but pointed out that the state law allows for a real estate license to be suspended or revoked if other efforts to force compliance have failed. Wouldn't it be counter-productive to take away a license that allows an errant parent to earn money? That same question has been raised about the jailing of delinquent parents, Dvorak pointed out. If a father is incarcerated, he can't go to his job to earn money. The point is, Dvorak said, if the father wasn't making the payments anyway, a stint in jail might be the jolt he needs to force compliance. Similarly, Dvorak said, suspending a professional license might be a strong incentive for a person to take care of the delinquency. Nancy J. Sulok's columns appear on Sundays, Mondays and Thursdays. You can reach her at nsulok@sbtinfo.com, or by writing c/o South Bend Tribune, 225 W. Colfax Ave., South Bend, IN 46626, telephone (574) 235-6234.